ArticleFrontiers in audiology and otology2024
Would a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process lead to placebo effects compared to a simple process?
Article in Frontiers in audiology and otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hearing Aid Service Models, Technology, and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Trial
- Is There Incremental Benefit with Incremental Hearing Device Technology for Adults with Hearing Loss?Audiology research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Placebo effects refer to the impact of a treatment on health outcomes that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself. The current study aimed to investigate whether a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process would induce placebo effects compared to a simple process, and whether personal attributes such as personality traits could predict susceptibility to these effects. Design: Thirty adults with hearing loss completed the study. The study began with a fitting session in which the field trial hearing aid configuration (the actual fitting) was set, followed by two experimental conditions. Each condition involved a fake hearing aid fitting and a 3-week field trial. In the fake fitting, bilateral hearing aids were fitted using the Comprehensive protocol (CM) that included multiple assessments and probe-microphone verification or the Streamlined protocol (ST) that did not involve any assessments other than a hearing test. The same hearing aid amplification settings established in the actual fitting, rather than the settings from the fake fittings, were used in the field trials for both conditions. Patient outcomes were measured using the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), which was administered as both retrospective self-reports and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) surveys. Personality was assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Upon completion of the study, participants expressed their hearing aid preferences based on hearing aids' real-world performances (prefer CM, prefer ST, or no preference). Results: For both retrospective self-reports and EMA, the IOI-HA scores of the CM and ST conditions did not significantly differ. Among the 30 participants, 22 expressed a preference for either CM ( Conclusions: At the group level, comprehensive hearing aid fitting process did not generate a placebo effect leading to better outcomes compared to a simple process. However, despite the absence of differences in hearing aid settings, most (73%) participants were affected by placebo effects, believing that one fitting process yielded better real-world outcomes than the other. Personal attributes including personality traits and age are associated with susceptibility to placebo effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.